Ultra Settings are a WASTE of your MONEY! 

Hey game dev here, I'm a tech artist and I usually do optimisation for game graphics and scripts and it's really nice for people to check out low settings in videos like these. I tend to always set low settings as how the game should be seen, if it doesn't look good at low then I talk to our level team about creating a better scene as it won't be a good or accurate scene. Optimisation techniques have been lost to time. It's obvious, how can some Devs get a game like gears of war running on an Xbox 360? There is nothing special you can do to get it to run on that hardware, so the designers designed their artstyle around the hardware. A good analysis is silent hill, using the fog to hide mesh load in, that camera distance from the player is to hide horrible geometry. Modern video game graphics have gotten to a point which we live in a luxury that particles can use individual light sources, realtime shadows with colour blending shadows, subsurface scattering (where light shines through objects), all at the low quality preset. But with this, becomes a complex process which why people like us have jobs in the game industry. We are essentially the people who know how to optimise 3d graphics and code to let you run our game at low settings and not notice a major difference in fidelity. We usually just tack on the extra graphics presets for the long term for when hardware can eventually run it and it's just us turning on postfx options and engine features. We (tech artists) came around because at the time when video games were very indie and new, they were already optimised for the very harsh low power hardware but as tools became more easier and less archaic to use, the more we think less about the game performing well on systems especially when they are just expected to run well regardless which is reckless thinking, you don't need more than 1-3gb of vram if we know how to optimise and utilise texture streaming. Thank you for this video, I loved it. Good to know that people really appreciate optimisation because man, it's a lot of work and knowing. Tech art isn't the easiest of jobs in the games industry.

But, but if everyone starts agreeing with you and deciding they don't need to push quality to the max, then they won't buy new graphics cards! The whole industry will crumble to dust overnight, and it's all YOUR fault!

I think instead this highlights the problems with quality presets. In many games you can get 90+% of the visual quality of ultra, while getting medium frame rates by going through and tuning your settings to match up specifically with the strengths and weaknesses of your hardware.

I recently purchased a laptop and in the search for a balance between heat and graphical fidelity I started noticing what you are talking about. Super high graphics settings are not worth the heat they generate (I am trying to make my laptop last, not melt it into a puddle).

As a wise man once said: _"Ultra it's for screenshots, High it's for gaming"_ edit: i tweak every game, starting from medium all the settings one by one, to find the balance between visual gorgeousness and fps cost. It was necessary on my old pc with i5-3550, 2x8gb ddr3 1866mhz, gtx970, 7200rpm seagate barracuda... but i'm still optimizing games now that i game a r7-5800x, 4x8gb of 3600mhz cl16 ram, xfx merc 319 rx6750xt (with oc+uv tweaks i have same performance as an oced 3070 / more closer to stock 3070ti), 4.0 nvme for os and programs + 3.0 nvme for games, sata ssd for old gen games and my previous mechanical hard drive for backups. I can game on ultra 1440p@144hz without issues but i prefer to have less heat and more fps at a minor visual difference 😎

Most of them are getting only better shadows and higher ambient occlusion from medium to high settings, what you can do is increase the contrast a bit when using medium settings, it will probably look exactly the same as high settings with a naked eye. 😎👍🏻

"Well this is my video so who the hell cares what you think?" 👏👏👏👏👏

High frame rate > ultra Graphics

The test is not doable with youtube compression on 1080p but I do agree that while ten years ago low settings was essentially ruining the game making it look like a gba port, nowadays low on pc is equivalent to 8th gen consoles and devs make sure that even the lowest preset is somewhat respectful of their presentation and art direction. This is not like the days of the 7th gen where cod4 (og) in lowest settings looked like cs 1.5 and you could get kicked from servers since you would have grass not rendering at all and could see enemies hiding. Yeah, such an advantage my gts7300 in 1024*768 at 27fps was, server admin, lol

I enjoy ultra low settings just fine. It saved me a lot of money over the years.

I always spend hours tweaking the best performance to graphic ratio on settings, but when I'm done I'd play the 15 minutes tutorial only and never touch the game again after that. 😅

Gigglebytes sounds like something quagmire would say

Your voice sounds just like your cartoon avatar if that makes sense the voice fits the toon lol

I swear some graphics settings do literally nothing but drop fps to satisfy the human hamster brain. "Ooooooooh look how much better it MUST be!"

The guy who spent 3K (at least here in Australia) on a RTX 4090 and complains he's only getting 30 fps in games on there 5K ultra 4K PC.

Thank you for doing this comparison for us. I think I prefer to stay on high settings or medium after seeing this video. I will rethink if ultra is really necessary for now on. I am playing Sackboy a Big Adventure on PC, I'll test high settings to see if I see any difference. You opened our eyes and still there people that think that the industry will crumble if everyone agree with you. For those people I suggest buying all new graphics cards to spend a lot of money and not most of the time playing barely on 4k ultra. I don't blame them, but don't blame us for give extra life for our cards. My machine is a laptop with 3070 and it runs almost all games on 1080 ultra 60fps. The games to come in next years probably won't run at maximum, but if I put on high or even medium settings I'll ensure that I'll give to it some more years of life. Thanks

Even if higher settings wastes fps what matter will it make? You will not feel a diffrens gameing in 90 fps or 120 in a singel player titel. Farcry 6 uses a engine i belive is same as farcry 3 so around 10 years old. Tomb raider i dont remeber the engine but its older to and god of war being a 2018 consol port. Reason to include this? Thank you

I game at Ultra settings all the time. With one SMALL catch though. I game at 1024 * 768 resolution. Because I have my PC with an older projector with that native resolution and I mainly play older games with that PC. And I also love trolling everyone about buying a 3070 and playing at 4:3 768p Oblivion at Ultra High! For all the other games my Xbox S is more than enough, and cost me just 250 euros! Excellent video my friend!

The lows were obvious but other then that it was very hard to see a differance

We need to stop caring about graphics....i grew up on nes and SNES.....trust me graphics don't make a game

Great video! Haven't seen any video so far which compares the settings so well. IMO medium settings would be the way to go. And depending of course on the capabilities of a PC system, you might want to go with more details. But the point was well made by you, that basically one almost cannot tell the differences between eg mid or high settings. And usually you would move when playing the game, even less time to spot any detail in the game. I would have maybe one usecase for buying a more expensive GPU. Let's see you are about to change your GPU and dont want to renew it already in a couple of years, a more expensive model would have more power for now and could perform even new games in a couple of years much better like at least being able to display new games then in medium settings. Or would it be cheaper to buy a new GPU every, lets say 3 years to be able to play the newest games in low/medium settings? I wonder... Anyway, awesome advice!, thank you TechDweeb!!

shadow hack set to low shadows and lower brightness in game

i think it's a lack of optimisation problem... sometime it's pointless to change video graphics... they are built for consoles in mind, not pc.. I agree with you completely!

I use a 65 inch 4K TV in lieu of a monitor. Under certain conditions, the difference between high and ultra is obvious. It depends on your personal setup. Honestly, I am in love with 4K content right now.

Ultra settings is placebo for wasting 5000$ on single PC

I have fairly low PC specs for these days. An RX 590 in an old repurposed HP H620 workstation with 48gb of slow DDR3 RAM and a pair of XEON E5-2690 CPU's in it. I use "optimised" settings for Battlefield 5 and can hit 100-130 FPS in multiplayer games which helps keep the input lag as low as possible. But in AAA games it doesn't matter so much so im happy at medium and you'll be surprised at the decent FPS that i can get. In slightly older titles i can bump up to ultra and have similar or the same experience as everybody else who spend thousands on their hardware.

This. This has been literally me with some guys at work wanting me to help build PCs for them. Which I'm glad to do for free cause I actually like building units again. Your video is the same reason I keep telling them guys new to the gaming scene to go for a much cheaper albeit newer hardware spec PC that can easily be turned into a low powered office machine down the road. Mainly i3 12th gen and Nvidia 1660 super/ti combo. In gaming, get a pc that does a great job at lower settings like a console. I still game on a PS4 Slim, Xbox 360, and Nintendo Switch. I've never been too crazy for gaming settings and resolutions. Just want some good looking quality and framerate that doesn't let me lose even more hair from my bald self. Cause I was pretty much good with my previous GTX 1050 2gb playing Halo Infinite and Jedi Fallen Order(being my most demading games)with base clocks pushed to increase CPU clocks amd GPU power draw. A custom coded Nvidia Sharpening to make 720p as close to 1080p(more like 900p) within its driver files. Plus I had the GTX 1050 overclocked like crazy with MSI Afterburner and adding a huge heatsink from a broken R9 270 and good thermal paste and pads. I went from low at 30fps to low with some medium settings and anti aliasing at 45fps which I still capped at 30fps yet it was way smoother. And thanks to that experience I upgraded to the Nvidia Tesla M40 12gb. I upgraded to play Metro Exodus cause it was giving a bad experience no matter what I could mess with on my old GPUs 2gbs of vram, and I wasn't going any lower than it's lowest point. And as a bonus thanks to that upgrade, I test animation upscaling programs for others. And I used a broken GTX 1070 blower style heatsink on the Tesla M40 12gb. Not too quite but definitely not a jet engine...not again GTX 560ti....not again 😥 In all of that I have a PC with parts at $350 to $400 giving me a good experience and I'm able to play not only the games I enjoy at a setting and resolution I get to custom select in a way I feel comfortable with, but I'm able to do so much more at a lower cost to get a similar experience to someone paying way, way more. And thanks to all the extra money I've gotta much more expensive gifts for my family for birthdays and christmas just now. And I've even upgraded my setup for a much nicer case, fans, lightning, keyboard, mouse, storage, etc. which makes my experiences much more comfortable. The best part I've learned from personal PCs and PC gaming apart from regular console gaming which I grew up and still enjoy with. It is the vast amount of tweaking, modding, customising, settings, and programs you can run to achieve your goal not only in gaming but in so much more ways to make it your way without spending huge amounts of money. If this doesn't sound like someones cup of tea, it's okay to just play console. I played God of War abd later on again Jedi Fallen Order(which looked and ran better) on my PS4 Slim I got and repair for $70. And those games were definitely meant for controllers anyways. Whereas the Metro and Halo series, they are much better to play on PC cause a mouse amd keyboard felt to me better for FPS games in my own experience. So if someone is getting in PC gaming or is wanting to go to a way, way higher and more expensive upgrade. I'm gonna show them a video like this so they can understand that settings and resolutions are something they can mess with and before spending a butt ton of money on a PC built for way more than just games. They can instead go for a much less expensive route to play and enjoy there experience for the games and settings they want to play at.

the level of sophistication has obviously increased to the point where it is harder to discern higher settings. unless you specialize in some aspect of video game graphics development or playing professionally, the average consumer won’t notice or even care about the differences. the main thing is whether it is playable at an enjoyable level or not and whether you think as a player if the game is good or not.

Dweeb, I think part of the reason you're seeing these small changes is because the games are console first oriented. The lowest common denominator will always be the console market. For example, this generation, every third party game will be made to run on the Series S. Because the consoles are still fairly new, right now that means on average medium to high settings on Series S at resolution (1080-1440p). As time passes and the systems become older, it is very likely that games will be running at The equivalent of PC low settings. At that point, developers usually make one set of assets and visuals, and then throw in a couple of little changes that can be implemented on the higher settings, which will be used on the PS5 and Series X, and of course, a few more little changes for PC. Basically what I'm saying is, for the vast majority of games, the lowest common denominator is a console. As such, they plan for that system and develop for the lowest system, then they splash on a nice little layer of polish for everything higher than that but it doesn't fundamentally change the core game. I wonder if this test would be different if you looked at PC only games. I actually prefer console gaming and Xbox is my go to, but I do have a decent gaming laptop where I can definitely see a difference between lower settings and higher settings on PC only games like Europa Universalis IV and Guild Wars 2.

Darnit, this showed me how far I'm out of the loop by now 😁 - the last time I was 'seriously' gaming (for varying values of 'seriously' 😉...), 'low' settings looked more like mush in most games... But back then, 150 fps would have been absolutely unobtainable anyway - or, only for people with *waaaay* more money to sink into their rig than sense... Seems like much has happened since Borderlands 2, in 3-Player LAN Co-op Mode 😁...

Normally, I can tell the difference, Especially when it comes to the AA method. I love playing in 4K and when there's aliasing, i gotta turn up the AA method or resolution scaling. I don't mind the lower FPS because I love taking screenshots. I have a folder of about 2K screenshots since November 2022. Once you see max settings after playing a game for awhile, it's tough to go down in fidelity. Very different comparison than just watching this video and trying to pick out what's high and low. The RU-vid compression also doesn't help the case either.

So I opened my atari 7800 emulator upscaled it to 4k and I couldn't tell any difference at all.... But thats my generation from my first atari through 8 and 16 bit and beyond, games these days all look great at any settings compared to those systems. Great video TD....good point, really like your back and forth

I'm looking at the used market right now... I can get a 3060ti for 200 or 3080 for 400.. I'm leaning towards the 3060ti.. thoughts?

Cranking shadows and view distance to the max is indeed a waste of fps. But texture quality is always worth keeping on ultra if you can afford it.

Very informative video , i was like low looks worse and its for potatoe pc's , but actually after watching your video i realize that game if pretty fine on low , and difference is barely noticeable on side by side 😅 i have an rtx 3070 i think it can hold up for the next year's hopefully by doing some custom settings. Thanks +1 sub

Keep going bro i love you experiment and i brought rtx 3050 on your opinion😃and I'm very satisfied

Forza Horizon 5 at 1440p+DLAA on a 5700X / 3060 Ti: Very low: 182 FPS Low: 161 FPS Medium: 145 FPS High: 130 FPS Ultra: 94 FPS Extreme: 73 FPS I think ultra is the way to go here. While the drop from high is large, trees are horribly blurry and very easily noticeable. Extreme is barely any different and not only is the performance drop significant but stutters also happen due to the VRAM usage getting close to 8GB!

but my cpu is the bottleneck so the settings dont change the framerate

I can tell if a game is set to low or not usually easily, but I can't tell the difference between medium or higher unless I keep going back and forth between them. In most cases, low setting usually have a more solid single colour in the texture when compared to medium or higher, I usually notice this on the character's skin or hair. GoW is one of the few exceptions where I can't tell the difference between them. In all honesty, I don't mind playing all these games on low, especially since the low settings looks much better than playing older games (which I still do).

I guess this means ill be alright running a quad SLI setup with GTX 260s. THANKS TECHDWEEB!

"where can I get a keyboard like one you are using? , neet-o!!!!"****

I don't rent my basement to a family of 40 sweat shop workers to play games on low settings. I like the lights to dim when my gaming rig starts.

bro sounds like the guy on his dp …that’s dope

I could see that the tests were done appropriately and thanks for providing a lot of details. It gives a lot of insights. However, it missed on the comparison between 1440p, 4k, or 1080p. Having higher end graphics cards would definitely support 4K resolution while lower end graphics cards do not support them. Therefore, comparison should have been made between 1080p, 1440p, 4K as well to also show the difference. This would push people to buy higher end graphics cards for sure when they look at 4k resolution haha. But great review overall.

Waste of electricity!? But I game on sunlight!

as someone who love ultra-graphics i couldn't tell it was so hard i though all the games where on medium to high settings

Dont know why but even at ultra settings with a RX 6800 XT I said the game could be better 😢 im never happy with modern graphics and my brain hate when settings is not at maximum. How to change ? Change my GPU ?

I start with high settings and then tweek it, but I also don't need to have very high resolution as I prefer streaming to my steamdeck or use a smaller curved monitor

5800x and 1080TI user here witha 1440p 144Hz and a 2nd 1080p 60Hz display. my 5800x runs at fixed 4GHz, 1.08V, all boosts disabled. my 144Hz monitor runs always at 120Hz. Somehow display AND GPU use a lot more power at 144Hz. Maybe because of the 2nd 60Hz display and 120 is 2x60 ? for single player games i cap my FPS at 60-100 depending on the genre only for multiplayer i cap at the 120 FPs my display can even show. overall safes up to 50% power draw depending on the game, a lot of heat and noise

Medium/low settings is all I really need for modern games For older, medium/high is the way to go

Great video! I didn't mind embracing my inner neanderthal cave man bro when gpus where actually reasonably priced. Like the last reasonably priced high end gpu was probably the 1080ti. Now when they tell me I need to pay out $1200 to $1600 just to play videogames, I start to think default settings, 60 fps 1080p/1440p, is looking good. Even what AMD is asking for the 7900xt non-x uh, 7900xt is too much.

Pardon my ignorance but does FPS above 60 matter if my monitor is 60Hz?

I play on low settings with view distance on high so I can see more that all

whats with the freddy kreuger fit tho

No pen and my mom's makeup was all dried up but I think I guessed them all right

I don't feel so bad about my GT 1030 now. Great post, always funny and entertaining.

at the end of the day just make sure all settings are turned on atleast exept ray tracing. then when possible set atestropic filtering to x16 and textures to max. and screen space reflections to max. rest to low but make sure they are atleast on. then make reselution higher then display and turn off anti aliasing unless its fsr 2.0 or dlss 2.0 and enjoy high res with insane fps. and game looks amazing.

What wallpaper is that? Cool af

Watching on youtube is different than looking at the real thing so comparison is not really good you need to test it for your self to see the difference by your self i always play on high graphics My rig is I5 3570 16gb 1600mhz Rx 580 8gb Yeah i know i dont have some insane pc or something And i use a 1366x768p monitor i can see so much difference in medium to high settings But im loving to customize my own settings so some settings you can't see any difference

High/medium settings are enough

I only play games on a laptop so I can’t afford to melt the components to get a game to perform well. I have to stay within a certain budget anyway.

I grew up with weak PCs, so I can play at pretty low details and framerates and still not care. I've played Skyrim, entered a game and was shocked to see my save somehow got completely corrupted. I had some old save up, my gear was lousy, my skills were lousy, untill missus asked me why it looks so bad. Yeah, I've fired up OG instead of the remastered version and haven't noticed. However, sometimes I do notice big time. I've already mentioned it, but after playing through the Witcher 2 and starting the Witcher 3 on medium settings, the lighting was so bad I had to wait to get a better GPU. It's a solitary case, but man those lightning effects looked awful back then. I did notice differences between high and medium in SOTTR, I don't think it was a placebo effect. However, the absolutely awful imput lag while playing in local steam streaming made me play it at medium. I didn't really care one bit, the game looked perfectly fine to me. It used to be different though, take Fifa 2000 for example. It looked fine to me at low settings on my Pentium 133, but when I upgraded to a Celeron 433 (Mendocino core btw, like the new AMD chips), I've set it to high and it looked like a completely different game. Same with Oblivion, try running that at lowest and highest settings. The jump in quality is just massive (the faces will still look like aliens, no matter the settings). Oh, and in your examples, I've noticed a big difference in Far Cry with texture pop in when going up in quality. Then you went to ultra, and it looked bad again so, thank you RU-vid algorithm. Oh, and also I tried (free) GeForce now, to see what it looks like. The game I chose was AC Origins. Man, those compression artifacts were bad enough to be offputting, I don't care how ultra those settings are if it all looks like bad RU-vid compression. Maybe it's different when you're closer to the server, but I'll take low settings over those glitches any day.

I am grew up on console versions of PC games, and also had an under powered PC. So as longer as the game feels like it is going at a comfortable frame rate, doesn't freeze up, and no screen tearing, I will have a great time. Will you be doing a video about the various frame rates of gaming? Like, how consoles used to be mostly 30fps, and the rise of the 60fps, and beyond? It reminds me of the cinematic mode of movies, where folks enough it at 24fps for a movie, but scoff if it is too high as it changes how they get into the movie. What I think I am getting at is, what fps makes a game feels right?

Great video, i liked that you put the setting side by side along with fps and your perspective of quality change. I have three son's into pc gaming, I'm also into gaming across pc and console. Hitting a target fps really just comes down to settings for anything gtx 970 or better. Below a GTX 970 you can come into vram issues on newer games.

Hey man, love your videos. I have a question, no offense, but are you doing a dweeb voice?

I got 3 answers 1 setting out, 4 correct and the last I got completely wrong (maybe its just that game or the specific clip that threw me :P).. Overall, I thought I could see the differences, but I will admit it wasn't as big as I thought it would be. Things like shadow detail, shader effects and post processing you can tell the difference if you're a bit of a nitpicker like me xD

Old school PC gamer here with a fancy new Legion Go and trying to figure out if I'll miss my high end gaming laptop. Your dweeby preaching has converted yet another. You make solid points about the assumption of perceived value and it's clear to see that there's very little actual value provided by higher settings. Thank you, you freaky little guy. I appreciate you.

As an ultra and RT addict, I prefer to just strangle my GPU by limiting it's temperature and fan speed, and lower only the least noticeable settings like LOD if I can't get near 60. If I can't, I'll probably end up just resorting to dlss. Also, I just found this channel from Iceberg Tech, great content.

There's been previous studies done showing when a game is in motion, the average person cannot differentiate between performance or presentation settings. Nor can they differentiate between 1080P VS 4K, when the game's in motion. Diminishing returns is a nice way to put it, BS waste of money is more accurate.

I like the visual candy so I crank the settings up on 4k. As long as the game runs at around 60fps Im a happy camper. For example: I have an RTX 3060 12gb that SOTTR gets 57fps everything ultra at 4k with dlss on and it looks beautiful.

Quit being such a busybody, it's none of your business what settings others choose to play at. I'd choose 30 FPS at max settings over 120 at low any time, any FPS above 30 is playable and even FPS in the 20's is bearable as long as it's not like that for the entire time, and if someone is buying powerful hardware then they can probably afford that hardware, there are more reasons to buy more powerful hardware than just FPS and settings, like the fact that the more powerful hardware will age better, for example, compare using a GTS 450 today to using a GTX 480 today, which one would you be more inclined to upgrade from?. Also, "Waste" and "Money" aren't acronyms

Anime games is probably the best test for this as it literally has two phases. Oh God and Wow

I also like dual pass dlss so use 2.25 dldsr + dlss performance. will look better then native. And for amd users use a radeon virtual super reselution, highe res then native with fsr 2.0 performance setting.

I believe your answer key has some issues for Clip#1 at 7:09. Your multiple choice letter doesn't match the typical answer for that letter. Which is the correct answer? Depending on the answer for Clip#1, I got either 5/8 or 6/8.

High/ultra are just a few additionals layers and effects but they will never make the scene as reaslistic as full ray tracing (understand CGI). But seriously, graphics are not that important. Video games rely too much on graphics and not enough on story telling, atmosphere, dialog, animations, believability, music, ui (that became very flat ant MTX oriented), even game install menu back in the days were immersive. For example watching a compressed divx of Lord of the Rings in 480p gives a more pleasant experience than watching a crap movie very well rendered 4K.

I am conflicted. While I do not want the filter hands to play, I would like to give a thumbs up.

have you done a video about the steam deck

I think it's the expectation from the GPUs, where they should be able to handle so and so games at certain settings since you spent a sh*t ton of money to buy them. I mean GPUs should at least be able to give their money's worth. For instance, A plaguetale requiem, on a 3060 Ti, gives out around 70 + FPS on 1080p high settings(at launch). And you made a video explaining how we can use 3060 Ti to game at 4k. I guess its just sad to see a shiny new overpriced midrange GPU which you just bought struggle against AAA games even when you're playing on a lower resolution. Games should be more optimized than this. 😞 Just a little rant from me, great video as always!!

I Just got recommended this video from Icebergtech. Perfect consumption for my caveman tech brain. Thank you for the in-depth analysis, instant like and sub.

3/8 🤣, maybe i would get more scores, if I could see it on my monitor in games, but its hard to spot the difference anyway. High is a way to go, especially these days. Less heat, less noise, higher fps, still best looking graphic. Why then ultra setting existing ? For screenshots only ? Then Ultra settings should automatically be enabled in Photo Mode or something like that.

Maybe the best is to have mixed settings that's the beauty of pc gaming

Would recommend a rx 5500 xt for 30000 pkr = 133 usd ?

Wow. the comparisons are revealing. Ultra settings gain negligible advantage. My monitor is only 50Hz. So, reaching 50fps is excellent for me. Higher frame rates are invisible because the monitor only refreshes the screen at 50fps. So, the increased frame rate does nothing for me. Regardless, this video revealed that many items are often unnoticed. Shadow detail, bolts on tire rims, flower detail, et cetera are low priority items during a game. Gamers are searching for objective items. Developers place more effort in game specific items and less effort in supporting elements to conserve resources. Hence, why a handheld weapon has greater detail than pink flowers or tire hubs. thanks for the video.

After yrs of playing GTA San Andreas on a PS2 everything is beautiful 😍

I got every single one wrong in the blind test. Im not a PC player tho.

for us old farts, I remember playing DOS games in CGA. Imagine the *horror* of the kids trying to play a video game not in full color.

Thx for the permission 👍

This is why people buy consoles

Another Very Pog Video from the Master

Completely unrelated, but I'm not sure if I'm starting to get used to your nasal speech persona or your voice is getting gradually less nasal. Every time I hear your nasal voice I feel like clearing my nose haha!

if u need hardcore gaming u no need ultra graphics. but if u need cinematic slow gameplay ultrasetting is good.

lol even now with 4k series i run these games on my 2080 rtx super just fine lol on to low/mid/performance they look and play just fine haha

convinced me to lower my settings

Thanks for this.

i think we can all make our own choice here.

Do this with cyberpunk

Here is a question for you: Assuming you have a GPU that can play your favourite game at 4K, Medium settings and at your ideal FPS. You now have the option of purchasing a PC Monitor. Would you purchase a 4K Monitor or would you purchase a 1080p Monitor and (as a result) play the game at Ultra Settings? PS I can merge this with my previous comment if you want Dweeb :)

13:11 playing too much tomb raider 😏

You can plY Hogwarts legacy with everything on high on a 1080 TI and recorf the game with the game you use yo play the game with the Nvidia recorder overlay and get very smooth frames. That all for 200 euro

I decided to go all out on my new pc. Bought a 3090. Now I'm being told that's old and buy a 4090 instead. I think I'll just stick to high if games start asking too much of us. Thanks for comparisons.